[D Z]

TTP - Obviously, I'm looking for inconsistencies for the sake of argument. My objection is basically this. I understand the system, but only under certain circumstances (as it pertains to pre-treated/usable land). In other words, it seems there's a dependence on there always being usable land available. If there were indeed a shortage of land relative to demand, I'm not connecting how market indicators will encourage production (treatment of land) without rental ability. For example, say I have my plot of land that I leased with my voucher but someone wants to lease it from me to put up an apartment complex on that land (because presumably demand for residential living exceeds supply). Why would I lease it to him if the lease payments are just going back to the community and not to me? Whereas if I decided the offered lease was worth it to me, and I could accept the lease payments myself, the gains from the transaction would be non-zero-sum (no one is poorer as a result). In my head, you're going to say "well, when your lease is up you'll get bid out of that land." But if this is the case, then the vouchers aren't really providing anyone free land, but maybe just pushing the price of existing land up by roughly the amount of the voucher?

Also, while I understand the moral difference you've made between land and capital, I'm not clear on how free land of varying qualities alone is going to provide economic remedies. It seems as if the vouchers would have to apply also to some type of living quarters (capital)...in which case, is subsidized rent really the mecca of solutions here?

I would think that your system works better without the vouchers and with allowable sub-leases, and with the communal gains from rent being ushered into private charities or something similar.

[Truth To Power]

My objection is basically this. I understand the system, but only under certain circumstances (as it pertains to pre-treated/usable land). In other words, it seems there's a dependence on there always being usable land available.

Remember, that doesn't mean raw land, just a location that can be used. The example I gave was of a vacant apartment, which represents a small fraction of the building's land footprint. It would be very odd to have no usable locations available, and I can only see it happening in a very tiny and restrictive jurisdiction like the Vatican or Monaco.

If there were indeed a shortage of land relative to demand, I'm not connecting how market indicators will encourage production (treatment of land) without rental ability.

What do you mean by, "without rental ability"? The system is essentially a rental system. People would pay the market rental value for excluding others from a location, less their universal individual exemption amount, much as they pay income tax on the income they receive over and above the universal individual exemption amount.

For example, say I have my plot of land that I leased with my voucher but someone wants to lease it from me to put up an apartment complex on that land (because presumably demand for residential living exceeds supply). Why would I lease it to him if the lease payments are just going back to the community and not to me?

That would be a rather odd situation. The exemption amount would be very modest: I've suggested half the median per-person rental value used. If someone thinks the location is valuable enough to justify investing in an apartment complex, that indicates the location is worth much more than the individual exemption amount. If someone is willing and able to pay more than the UIE amount for it, that's the market rent, and your UIE won't be enough to cover the payments.
Now, to make tenure more secure for those contemplating substantial investments in improvements, landholders would have an option of paying a premium over the market rent in order to obtain longer tenure. Otherwise, landholders faced with a market rent rising beyond what they were willing and able to pay would have to decide if it was worth it to pay the extra in order to keep using the fixed improvements.

Whereas if I decided the offered lease was worth it to me, and I could accept the lease payments myself, the gains from the transaction would be non-zero-sum (no one is poorer as a result).

So you would pocket a speculative gain. The system deliberately discourages speculation as it is wasteful. And please remember that everyone who would otherwise want to use the land is poorer as a result of being deprived of their access to it.

In my head, you're going to say "well, when your lease is up you'll get bid out of that land."

That's sounds likely.

But if this is the case, then the vouchers aren't really providing anyone free land,

Sure they are. Just not as much or as desirable land as they might prefer. In particular, locations that are becoming more desirable would likely see higher user turnover as people find the rent rising out of their comfort zone. But that's just part of efficient market allocation.

but maybe just pushing the price of existing land up by roughly the amount of the voucher?

No, because the voucher is for people, not locations. That is the crucial difference from the typical per-property exemptions offered under current property tax systems. There is no way to tell how many people might want to use their vouchers for any given location, so there is no way to map them onto value.

Also, while I understand the moral difference you've made between land and capital, I'm not clear on how free land of varying qualities alone is going to provide economic remedies.

By giving EVERYONE free, secure access to the public services and infrastructure government provides and the amenities and opportunities the community provides, without having to pay landowners full market value for them. It is having to pay just for opportunity that keeps people poor, and under relentless financial duress. If they don't have to pay just for access to opportunity, they have options. They don't have to take a job with poor wages and conditions, because they don't have to make the rent at the end of the month just to maintain their access to opportunity.

It seems as if the vouchers would have to apply also to some type of living quarters (capital)...in which case, is subsidized rent really the mecca of solutions here?

Of course they apply to the living quarters, as those living quarters are at a location. I mentioned the option of getting use of improvements and even one's meals by living with people who are using more and/or better land than their exemptions can cover. Subsidized rent is not the solution because it unjustly favors tenants over direct land users, leading to inefficient allocation. Restoring people's equal rights to liberty is the solution because it supports efficient allocation and the most appropriate and productive use of locations.

I would think that your system works better without the vouchers and with allowable sub-leases, and with the communal gains from rent being ushered into private charities or something similar.

Sub-leases are certainly allowed; it would just be unusual and difficult to sub-let profitably. I don't see any benefit from involving private charities. Democratic governance allows the people to choose how their community uses the rental income it has earned.